MFT Tekko Integrated Rail System

Mission First Tactical is making a 7″ aluminum quad-rail for the AR-15. Called the T-MARC (Tekko Metal AR Carbine) Integrated Rail System, it replaces the standard handguard with a unit that has four Picatinny rails.

No screws or gunsmithing is needed to install this quad rail, rather it is held in place by a ring and cap. The rail system is made of 6061 aluminum in the United States. It is hard coat anodized and comes with a lifetime warranty. MSRP is $124.99.

An advocate of gun proliferation zones, Richard is a long time shooter, former cop and internet entrepreneur. Among the many places he calls home is http://www.gunsholstersandgear.com/.

Advertisement

LJK

Aren’t these bulky, non-removable rails kind of gone out of fashion already?

iksnilol

Would nice if someone made some sort of lightweight free-float handguard (carbon fiber maybe?) and with a “ring” of rails at the end. The rails could be 2 inches or something, just enough to mount your flashlight and MBUS (and lasers an dofregrips if you like that).

Pretty much what I was thinking, wonder how much is saved compared to regular handguards and quadrails.

Joshua

No point. FF offers better accuracy, longer bolt life, and increased reliability. The days of non FF rails are pretty much over for serious users.

Even the Army caught on to this and will replace the KAC RAS next year.

Tim U

Accuracy yes. but bolt life? How does it change the bolt life?

Joshua

SOCOM has a ton of data on this for those who can view it, it was a big reason why the RIS II had a FF requirement.

I’ll try to keep it short and simple as it can be complicated.

On a standard rail if you apply pressures through aggressive grip and ancillery items you put pressure on the barrel. This pressure travel to the barrel extension which can minutely shift it(so small it takes equipment to really measure it). This shift applies uneven pressures to the bolt when a round is fired, which leads to uneven lug pressure and increased friction on extraction and chambering.

By removing outside pressure off the barrel you allow for even pressures on the bolt lugs every time, this allows for increased bolt life and easier extraction which gives greater reliability.

The Aussies also discovered this and it is partly why their new EF88 has a FF barrel.

Joshua

Sorry Tim I’m doing this on my phone, I forgot to add that this happens as the metals expand due to heat from firing the weapon, that is when the shift is noticeable during testing.

DiverEngrSL17K

Thumbs-up on the technical reasoning behind the principle — but is the difference so great that it really makes that much of a difference to bolt life, ease of extraction and mechanical reliability when considered in the context of an individual weapon’s design parameters and how they are weighted and balanced one against the other? Obviously, some designs would be more responsive to this engineering precept, but to others it might matter little, if at all.

Still, this is very good information to have in hand since we are, after all, exchanging valuable information on firearms as a mutual interest. Thank you!

Joshua

It made a very noticeable difference on both the M4A1 and the CQBR(10.3″).

Also remember the M4A1 has a medium profile barrel that SOCOM actually requested, it is much more rigid than the M4 and M16 profile barrels. The RO921HB(M4A1) has a diameter under the hand guards of .845″ compared to the RO921(M4) which has a diameter of .62″ under the hand guards.

DiverEngrSL17K

I agree that it did ( and does ) make a difference with M4 and M16-type weapons. It could also make a difference with some other assault rifle and carbine families. Then again, it may not do so to any appreciable degree with yet other rifle / carbine types. As I have said, it will be really interesting to see what comes to the surface in the near future regarding both schools of thought. As in most firearms designs, precepts and concepts often come full circle with time. One is not necessarily actually better or more correct than the other, although it may be “better” ( more applicable ) in the context of a given time period and the available technology ; when circumstances change, the opposite may become true ( at least for that other time period ). Such is the evolution and re-evolution of firearms technology, or any other technology for that matter.

Thanks for the immediate input on the M4 trials, though — still a priceless source of “current events” data, which is what we have to work with since none of us is, presumably, capable of accurately and consistently foretelling the future — much appreciated!

Keep in touch and keep posting, Joshua. It’s always great sharing with knowledgeable contributors who still keep an open mind while respecting the facts.

DiverEngrSL17K

B****y phones — they get smaller by the year while our thumbs and fingers remain the same size, and the eyes don’t get any better :).

Joshua

Lol tell me about it, I have a Iphone 4 and its killing me. Upgrading to the larger LG G2 next month luckily, still though a 5″ screen will still be a hassle.

Very interesting and informative — it certainly adds a new dimension to the debate. Thanks!

DiverEngrSL17K

Free-floating hand guards might be all the fashionable rage these days, but they all have a glaring weakness — lack of structural support for the barrel at the front end. This is the reason why the vast majority of military-grade combat rifles and carbines do not have FF hand guards. It is one thing for a serious civilian or LE user to have a Mil-Spec rifle or carbine that he / she uses for hunting, self-defence, range firing, LE operations, etc., but it is a completely different scenario where the real-life, low-maintenance / no-maintenance, brutal rough-and-tumble of the battlefield is concerned — which is a great deal more serious. This is the reason for having a fully-supportive, non-FF hand guard. You might give up a small amount of accuracy, but you will gain a lot more in terms of structural integrity, which also translates to greater battlefield reliability, which in turn is what truly matters in the end for military service. That last nth degree of accuracy which so many hold so dear is generally irrelevant for practical military use because it doesn’t matter whether you hit your target with 1.0 MOA or less accuracy, or whether you do so with 1.0-3.0 MOA accuracy. Either way, said target is rendered hors-de-combat, and that is all that matters.

The only exceptions to the rule would be specialized sniping and DMR applications, and even then a lot would depend on the individual design parameters of the weapon in question ( some rifles actually work better without free-float, others the opposite ).

Joshua

Not true FF rails are widely popular in military rifles. HK416/417, L129A1, the Danes new C8’s, SOCOM’s M4A1 and CQBR come standard with the DD RIS II, the Aussies new EF88, the army is in the middle of its FRAK competition and should have a winner next year, so the new M4A1’s every soldier receives will have a FF rail. And there are more.

FF rails can be just as strong if not stronger than standard rails.

DiverEngrSL17K

Hi, Joshua :

Thanks for your input. I don’t disagree that the weapons you listed do incorporate FF rails, and probably do quite well by design. However, measured against the overall majority of firearms designed specifically for military use, they are still in a minority for the reasons I mentioned. As far as strength and structural integrity is concerned, FF rails designed for military service might be just as strong in terms of their mounting and integral strength, but they still do not provide the structural tie-in and integrity at the forward end as compared to a conventional hand guard. Those particular designs you have mentioned may have made up for this by incorporating certain design features ( eg, heavy over-engineering of the rear hand guard mounts and structure of the hand guards themselves ), enough for the designers to consider the trade-off in slightly increased accuracy worthwhile.

At this point in time, there obviously appear to be two schools of thought about this topic. It will be interesting to see how further advanced design and materials technologies sway the trend one way or the other.

Let’s keep a collective eye on this and see how things go in the coming years.